1

1

2

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 3

4

5

AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS 2.0: A VISION FOR SAFETY PUBLIC MEETING 6

7

8

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 9

Washington, D.C. 20590 10

November 6, 2017 11

9:15 a.m. 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Reported by: KeVon Congo 22

2

A P P E A R A N C E S 1

2

Nat Beuse, NHTSA 3

Dee Williams, NHTSA 4

Deborah Sweet, NHTSA 5

Heidi King, NHTSA 6

Melanie Brunson, Blinded Veterans Associations 7

Henry Claypool, American Association of People with 8

Disabilities 9

John Pare, National Federation of the Blind 10

Ashley Helsing 11

Kayla McKeon 12

Carol Tyson, Disability Rights, Education and Events 13

Fund 14

Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, National Federation of the 15

Blind 16

Megan Ekstrom, Motorcycle Riders Foundation 17

Michael Sayre, American Motorcycle Association 18

William Wallace, Consumers Union/Consumer Reports 19

Jason Levine, Center for Auto Safety 20

Peter Kurdock, Advocate for Highway and Auto Safety 21

David F. Snyder, Property Casualty Insurance 22

Association of America 23

3

A P P E A R A N C E S (continued) 1

2

Jonathan Weinberger, Alliance for Auto Manufacturers 3

Paul Scullion, Association of Global Automakers 4

Andre Welch, Ford Motor Company 5

Amitai Bin-Nun, Autonomous Vehicles and Mobility 6

Innovations, America's Securing Future Energy 7

Timothy Blubaugh, Truck and Engine Association 8

Mike Cammisa, American Trucking Associations 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

4

P R O C E E D I N G S 1

MR. BEUSE: My name is Nat Beuse. I'm the 2

Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety 3

Research and I'd like to welcome you to this 4

morning's listening session on automated driving 5

systems, a vision for safety. 6

We're going to go through a few housekeeping 7

items just real quick. And I would introduce 8

Debbie Sweet and Dee Williams, who are going to 9

co-chair this meeting with me. And we'll also 10

have our Deputy Administrator who will stop by to 11

give remarks. 12

Without further ado, Debbie, please walk us 13

through that. 14

MS. SWEET: All right. Thanks, Nat. 15

Good morning, and thank you very much for 16

coming here this morning. Again, my name is 17

Debbie Sweet and I work in vehicle safety research 18

here at NHTSA. 19

Before we get started, like we said, we want 20

to cover a few housekeeping things. Bathroom, 21

catty-corner from this back door. If there's an 22

5

emergency and we need to exit the building, you 1

can hit any of these three doors, walk back 2

towards the atrium and then there's exits on both 3

sides. So just in case we need to do that. 4

If we can ask everyone to silence their cell 5

phones, please, if you haven't already done so. 6

We have webcast and we just want to make sure that 7

the audio is clear. In addition, for those 8

speaking, if you can please speak into the 9

microphone to make sure that we get it captured as 10

well. 11

We do have an overflow room. It's pretty 12

crowded in here today, so if anybody needs a 13

little bit more space, you're welcome to go to 14

Conference Room 3, which is going to be back down 15

this hall and almost to the very end on the left. 16

Conference Room 3 is an overflow room. That's 17

going to have the listening session via webcast. 18

You're welcome to take a seat in there if -- if 19

you need a little bit more space. 20

As we move through the morning, we're going to 21

be calling registered speakers by name. We have, 22

6

as of now, one person on the phone that we'll let 1

go first. And then if you registered to speak, 2

I'm going to ask you to come to the podium up 3

front. Again, speak into the microphone. All 4

comments should be directed towards the NHTSA 5

staff. If we have questions for follow up, we'll 6

just ask a couple questions at that time. 7

We'll go through all the registered speakers 8

first and then we'll open the floor for anyone 9

else who would like to provide comments. Again, 10

we ask that you restrict your comments to five 11

minutes so that we can make sure that everybody 12

has an opportunity to speak today. 13

We are going to run through the technical -- 14

or through the volunteer guidance for ADS first, 15

comments on those, and then set aside, we have a 16

little bit different time for the technical 17

assistance [inaudible]. 18

We have a break scheduled tentatively, but 19

if -- we're just going to kind of play it by ear 20

as far as timing goes so that we can go ahead and 21

do the break as necessary. 22

7

Before I -- before we begin, we want to go 1

ahead and make sure everyone is aware that we have 2

three dockets open right now, that everyone has 3

the numbers. I had them up on the slide earlier, 4

so hopefully you had a chance to take a look. 5

Three dockets open right now; one is for general 6

comments on ADS 2.0, that closes on November 14th. 7

The second is the PRA for ADS 2.0, that closes 8

also on November 14th. We have a third docket 9

that was opened subsequent -- or in conjunction 10

with the voluntary safety self-assessment public 11

meeting that we had a couple weeks ago, and that 12

closes on December 18th. Docket numbers, if you 13

need them, I can hand them to you again and put 14

the slide up at the end of the meeting, if you'd 15

like to look at the docket numbers. 16

I also want to bring to everyone's attention, 17

if you're not already aware, that we have a lot of 18

information on our NHTSA website regarding 19

automated driving systems, so NHTSA.gov/AV is our 20

main consumer webpage. I do want to make sure 21

that everyone is aware that there is a 22

8

differentiation between some of our information on 1

the web regarding ADS and advanced technologies in 2

general. So when you go to the AV website, it's 3

going to direct you to the consumer-targeted 4

website. Accessible through the manufacturers' 5

section on our web as well as on that main AV 6

website is a guidance resources document, and 7

that's going to provide the ADS 2.0 itself as well 8

as some Q and A, information about public 9

meetings, [inaudible] register notices and the 10

like. So please go and take a look at that 11

information as well. And if you have questions or 12

comments, please make sure that we're aware of 13

them. 14

I think that covers general information and 15

housekeeping. So to get us started this morning, 16

it's my pleasure to introduce you guys to NHTSA's 17

Acting Administrator, Heidi King. It's been a 18

pleasure having Heidi here at NHTSA so far. It's 19

evident that she really cares about what we're 20

doing here at the agency. She's really thirsty 21

for knowledge and continuing in our efforts 22

9

towards safety. So we appreciate her stopping by 1

this morning. And with that, please welcome Heidi 2

King. 3

MS. KING: Thank you very much. And good 4

morning and happy Monday, everybody. It is 5

Monday, right? 6

It's very much my honor to be with you here 7

this morning. Thank you to the team for making 8

the opportunity for me to come say hello and 9

welcome you and to have some time with you to hear 10

your comments. 11

As you know, we're here to discuss the 12

automated driving systems 2.0 guidance of vision 13

for safety. Couldn't be more excited. A vision 14

for safety, as you know, was released a couple of 15

months ago, taking into account the many comments 16

we received after last year's guidance, 1.0, was 17

issued. We tried very hard to listen from your 18

feedback, from other's feedback, from state and 19

local governments, and those comments are 20

reflected in the draft 2.0 that you have now that 21

we're discussing today. 22

10

As you know, if offers a path forward for the 1

safe deployment of autonomous vehicles. Safety at 2

NHTSA is our very first priority. It's a very 3

first priority for almost all of us. So please 4

keep that in mind in your comments, and you'll 5

continue to hear that theme from us. When we're 6

in times of rapid technological change, it's more 7

important than ever to be mindful of safety. 8

The safe deployment of vehicles and the 2.0 9

guidance, we're encouraging new entrance into the 10

space, encouraging ideas that deliver safer 11

vehicles. We're creating a flexible framework to 12

help match the pace of private sector innovation 13

with government action. We're supporting industry 14

innovation and encouraging open communication. 15

The 2.0 guidance, in identifying best 16

practices from around the country and offering 17

technical assistance to State legislatures will 18

hopefully create a place and a room and a 19

structure for the dialogue as we move through this 20

exciting time together. 21

So as I mentioned, the 2.0 guidance is 22

11

reflecting the comments and feedback we received 1

from last year's guidance. Let me note that 2.0 2

is not a static document. A vision for safety is 3

not a static document. We are here today to hear 4

your feedback, to incorporate it and think about 5

our next steps forward; to gather more information 6

together, to continue moving forward together. We 7

hope to hear from you, from all of you. I know 8

that many of you are speakers here today. While I 9

will not be able to be in the room with you, many 10

of us are upstairs watching online as best as 11

we're able. But anyone in this room and the 12

others engaged in the industry, we hope to hear 13

from you as well; if not today, at some point in 14

the near future. 15

We're at a point now where we're not just 16

receiving comments on a guidance, we're actually 17

implementing the guidance. We're not just 18

presenting it, we're living it. We've seen one 19

company already move forward with their safety 20

report, with their voluntary safety self- 21

assessment, including discussion of all 12 safety 22

12

elements in their document. We're excited to see 1

the first mover and we're looking forward to 2

seeing more. 3

So welcome today. Happy Monday. We look 4

forward to hearing your comments today. I see the 5

room is very full with even more participants 6

joining us by webcast. 7

As you know, our goal at the Department of 8

Transportation is to help usher in this new era in 9

transportation innovation and safety, ensuring 10

that our country remains a global leader in 11

autonomist technology development. Efforts like 12

this listening session, collaborating with 13

stakeholders, this is how together we will stay on 14

top of and in step with moving forward together. 15

We are eager to hear from you today, from all of 16

you, and look forward to working together in the 17

coming year. Thank you. 18

MS. SWEET: So thank you, Heidi, for those 19

comments. 20

We're going to start now with the listening 21

session. Our first presenter is Melanie Brunson. 22

13

She's going to join us on the phone. So we're 1

going to make sure that the AV is working okay. 2

So give us a second. 3

MS. WILLIAMS: Are you there? 4

MS. BRUNSON: I am. 5

MS. WILLIAMS: Wonderful. And can you hear us 6

okay? 7

MS. BRUNSON: I can hear you fine. 8

MS. SWEET: Okay. Perfect. Whenever you're 9

ready. 10

MS. BRUNSON: Good morning and thank you for 11

the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm 12

sorry that I couldn't be in the room with 13

everyone. But I am here to represent the Blinded 14

Veterans Associations. Our members are very 15

interested and, frankly, excited about the 16

automated vehicle technology as a means of helping 17

to remove one of the most intransigent barriers 18

that people who do not drive have faced, and that 19

is access to transportation. 20

Transportation has been a -- the lack of 21

transportation has been a barrier to full 22

14

participation in everything from healthcare to re- 1

employment after folks return to civilian life 2

following military service. So there are a number 3

of reasons why this technology of great interest 4

as a means of circumventing some of these 5

barriers. 6

We are followers of the technology, pleased 7

with the direction that NHTSA has been taking. 8

The approach seems reasonable. I think the only 9

thing that I would say is that it is our hope that 10

the voluntary nature of the guidance does not 11

prevent NHTSA from being proactive in terms of 12

getting the word out about the value of this 13

technology as a -- as a means of improving safety 14

as well as improving access to community and full 15

participation in society for non-drivers because 16

there is always resistance to change, even good 17

change, due to fear and due to lack of 18

information. And NHTSA can be a good source of 19

that information to help smooth some of the rough 20

edges in the transition that are likely to occur 21

as the technology evolves. Well, it doesn't even 22

15

evolve, it's like it is moving fairly fast-paced. 1

And sometimes the concerns can't keep up with the 2

innovation. So we hope that NHTSA will be 3

proactive as an intermediary between public -- the 4

public and the industry in terms of making sure 5

that the benefits are, in fact, there and, in 6

fact, are known to help to public so that the 7

transition to the acceptance of this technology as 8

a safe means of transportation can be -- can be 9

more widespread because there's already a lot of 10

talk about the potential for things to go wrong. 11

And while that potential certainly is there, NHTSA 12

can play a good role in terms of helping industry 13

to minimize it as well as helping the public to 14

accept the technology. 15

So we just encourage that as the process moves 16

forward, and we look forward to the advent of this 17

technology as time goes on. So thank you very 18

much for the opportunity to -- to raise this 19

concern, but also thank you for the work that 20

you're doing to help to bring this technology into 21

greater acceptance and greater use. We look 22

16

forward to it as time passes. 1

MS. SWEET: Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, 2

Melanie. 3

MS. BRUNSON: Thank you. 4

MS. SWEET: And is Susan on the phone? Okay. 5

We'll check again for her. 6

Next I'd like to ask Henry Claypool for his 7

comments. Mr. Claypool? 8

MR. CLAYPOOL: Hello. I'm Henry Claypool, a 9

policy consultant to the Americans -- or the 10

Association -- excuse me -- the American 11

Association of People with Disabilities. I swear 12

I know them. 13

AAPD really appreciates the opportunity to 14

provide comment here. So they'll be directed at 15

NHSTA, but just the opportunity to put a few 16

things on the record is something we deeply 17

appreciate. 18

First of all, AAPD would like to see level 4 19

and above automated vehicles operating on public 20

roads as soon as it is safety possible. We seek 21

direct engagement with the automobile 22

17

manufacturers, with plans to deploy level 4 1

vehicles in the next few years, to ensure that 2

accessibility issues are addressed. And NHTSA 3

needs to make clear that existing safety standards 4

are not barriers to efforts to design, build, 5

test, deploy fully autonomous, fully accessible 6

vehicles. 7

So AAPD believes that this technology will 8

make it safer for all people to travel on public 9

roads, especially those of us with limited 10

transportation options. We also believe that 11

industry, government and consumer groups should 12

work together to insure that level 4 autonomous 13

vehicles are safely operating on public roads as 14

soon as possible. 15

With major automobile manufacturers stating 16

that they have an -- they have autonomous vehicles 17

operating at level 4 on public roads early in the 18

decade, we assume that the design work for these 19

vehicles is well underway. We urge the automobile 20

industry to engage directly with consumer groups 21

like the Americans with -- the AAPD and a host of 22

18

others that you'll hear from today, to engage 1

directly with these groups to understand the 2

accessibility needs. 3

We feel strongly, due to the limited evidence 4

of automobile manufacture -- the limited evidence 5

that automobile manufacturers are working to 6

create accessible AVs today. We're concerned that 7

certain populations will not be able to benefit 8

from this technology if very specific design issue 9

are not addressed. If NHTSA can be helpful in 10

facilitating conversations around the 11

accessibility of AVs, we welcome that. 12

As NHTSA is updating testing protocols for 13

AVs, the agency should identify standards that are 14

barriers to creating accessible vehicles. So 15

wherever you can find a potential safety standard 16

that might prevent a manufacturer from moving 17

forward, we would appreciate you flagging that for 18

them and us. 19

Also, NHTSA should solicit input from those 20

entities designing and building AVs on the 21

barriers they encounter to building accessibility 22

19

into these vehicles. The creation of a wheelchair 1

accessible AV presents some significant design 2

challenges. NHTSA should consider establishing a 3

special work stream to support industry in its 4

efforts to deploy an AV able to transport people 5

that sit in their wheelchairs while they are in 6

transit. It's been a struggle when we look at how 7

the key NC's [phonetic] are operating and their 8

ability to provide a wheelchair accessible option, 9

and since we understand that the early phases of 10

AVs will deploy in a fleet manner, we assume that 11

we'll encounter those same challenges. 12

So we need to have a greater deliberation 13

around how we're going to serve that population 14

that relies on a wheelchair while in transit. 15

So, again, thank you for the opportunity. 16

MS. SWEET: Thank you, Mr. Claypool. 17

Thank you. Next, if I could ask Mr. John Pare 18

to come to the microphone. 19

Thank you. 20

MR. PARE: Hello. My name is John Pare and 21

I'm the Executive Director for Advocacy and Policy 22

20

at the National Federation of the Blind. 1

I want to begin by commending NHTSA for its 2

fine work on the pedestrian safety enhancement 3

act, that final rule went into effect just 4

recently, and say that this -- the work on the 5

pedestrian safety enhancement act can be a 6

paradigm for how we can work together on AV 7

technology. And the key here will be the 8

partnership between NHTSA and the various car 9

companies and the disability community, blind 10

people. Just like we did for the pedestrian 11

safety enhancement act, we had a tremendous team 12

effort to try to create that with those legs of 13

the stool being NHTSA, car companies, disability 14

groups. And I think we can do that now, and I 15

think we are doing it now. We had a meeting about 16

ten days ago at the National Federation of Blind 17

with participation from the three legs of the 18

stool, NHTSA and many car companies with strong 19

representation from the Alliance of Automobile 20

Manufacturers and many disability groups, and we 21

had a productive discussion. And I think today's 22

21

meeting reflects that. So I want to thank you and 1

encourage that we continue because I see this as 2

the first not the -- a first step, certainly not 3

the last step, in a ten-year conversation. 4

Certainly, as you heard from Melanie earlier, 5

AV cars represent a particular benefit to people 6

who don't currently drive, like blind people. 7

Blind people get around today using mass transit 8

and other things. We don't have the 9

transportation flexibility that autonomous 10

vehicles will present. So we are particularly 11

interested in moving forward as quickly as 12

possible, just as Henry has indicated, as soon as 13

level 4 and 5 vehicles can be safely on the road 14

the better. 15

It affects a large number of people. 16

According to the American Community Survey from 17

the Census Bureau, 6,833,000 -- there are 18

6,833,000 blind people in the United States. And 19

in terms of worldwide, there's 253,000,000 blind 20

people who are unable to drive due to their vision 21

that would benefit from autonomous vehicles. 22

22

Certainly there's many other people who don't 1

currently drive who will also benefit from 2

autonomous vehicles. So this work is incredibly 3

important. 4

For blind people, there's probably two key 5

things to keep in mind, and I think some of my 6

colleagues that will come after might give more 7

details on these, but the first will be that there 8

shouldn't be any requirement -- today when you get 9

a driver's license for a regular car, certainly 10

the idea that you'd have to take an acuity test 11

makes sense, but with cars that drive themselves, 12

any concept of an acuity test for your eyes 13

doesn't make any sense. So we want to make sure 14

that there's no barriers in any way to getting 15

whatever type of operators' licenses that need to 16

be obtained to operate these vehicles for blind 17

people. 18

And second, that they are fully accessible 19

through various tactile and audio interfaces. 20

This is actually very easy to do, so it's not -- 21

it's not a big ask, but it needs to be clearly 22

23

defined and the work in guideline 2.0 is a good 1

start. I think we need to keep refining that and 2

putting more details to make sure car companies 3

know exactly what it means to make sure things are 4

compliant, not only in instructing a car where it 5

needs to go, but making sure that you can monitor 6

progress and operate other things like the air 7

conditioning and the radio and so forth. 8

We look forward to working together on all of 9

these things and appreciate the opportunity today 10

to provide these comments. 11

MS. SWEET: Thank you, Mr. Pare. 12

All right. Next I'd like to ask Ashley 13

Helsing, along with Audrian Forsyth [phonetic] to 14

please come forward. 15

MS. HELSING: Thank you. Audrian actually 16

couldn’t make it today so I brought my other 17

colleague, Kayla. 18

MS. SWEET: Kayla? 19

MS. HELSING: Kayla McKeon. 20

MS. SWEET: Welcome. 21

MS. McKEON: Thank you. 22

24

MS. HELSING: So thank you so much first and 1

foremost for having us today. AVs will make a 2

huge difference for the Down Syndrome community 3

and for the intellectual disability community at 4

large. It, you know, will be really important 5

that -- that safety standards are, of course, up 6

to -- up to snuff and that caregivers and parents, 7

family members are all aware of those -- of 8

those -- of those safety standards and the like. 9

AVs will mean significant more -- significantly 10

more independence for the Down Syndrome community. 11

Transportation is a huge barrier for employment of 12

people with Down Syndrome. That's one thing that 13

my organization is working a lot right now is 14

getting people with Down Syndrome jobs, and that 15

is identified as a really large barrier. 16

We're very lucky here in D.C. to have, you 17

know, the public transportation and things that we 18

do have, but for most of the country that is not 19

the case. So AVs will make -- will make a huge 20

difference. 21

Now I'll hand it over to Kayla for the self-22

25

advocate perspective. 1

MS. McKEON: Thank you, Ashley. And -- thank 2

you, Ashley. And thank you for having us here 3

today. We feel as a self-advocate that, yes, 4

maybe some of us can drive, some of us can't. 5

It's on the physicalities of someone with Down 6

Syndrome may not be up to speed on everything. 7

That we feel like this would benefit in the long 8

run. Maybe we don't have all those things you 9

[inaudible], but with that, I can see it. So 10

let's get on the same page here, right? And 11

collaborate as much as we can and really get this 12

going. 13

Thank you. 14

MS. SWEET: Thank you, Kayla. Thank you, 15

Ashley. 16

All right. Is Carol Tyson here to speak 17

today? 18

MS. TYSON: Hi. Thank you for allowing me the 19

opportunity to speak, and I want to support the 20

comments from the other members of the disability 21

community as well. 22

26

I'm here representing the Disability Rights, 1

Education and Events Fund. We're based in 2

California, a leading national civil rights law 3

and policy center directed by individuals with 4

disabilities and parents who have children with 5

disabilities. 6

Automated driving systems have the potential 7

to dramatically improve the lives of people with 8

disabilities, but the promise and safety of these 9

systems will only be realized if the cars are 10

truly accessible and the safety elements take into 11

consideration the needs of people with 12

disabilities. There is no -- no substitute, as 13

we've heard, for gathering input directly from 14

users with disabilities. 15

To that end, DREEF encourages the following on 16

the front end rather than the back end, which will 17

cost a lot more money as -- as we know. 18

So I went through and looked at each of the 19

safety elements, and I'm not going to speak to 20

each one, but I did want to mention a few -- a few 21

ideas that we have. 22

27

On the operational design domain, in addition 1

to when and where the vehicle is designed to 2

operate, we would recommend including who the 3

vehicle is designed to transport. For example, 4

whether or not it can accommodate a person who's 5

using a manual or power wheelchair. 6

On the human machine interface, the current 7

guidelines encourage consultation with the 8

disability community in the design of the HMI and 9

we're grateful for that, though I would love it to 10

see because right now it's a footnote, if you 11

could pull that into the main guidelines. But we 12

believe people with disabilities will have final 13

design and process recommendations across all of 14

the safety design elements and we would hope that 15

you could encourage the engagement of the people 16

with disabilities and testers across all of the 17

safety elements and not just in the HMI. 18

Let's see. In crashworthiness, please 19

recommend consideration of people of all shapes 20

and sizes, wheelchair users and guide dogs when 21

these testing -- when the testing is happening. 22

28

Post-crash AVS behavior. Please consider 1

recommending a transparent process and plan for 2

post-crash behavior. Whether and when state or 3

local police or an ambulance will be alerted 4

should be clear to operators and passengers before 5

they get in the car. So understanding when that 6

engagement will take place. 7

Data reporting. For after a crash has 8

happened, I would ask you to consider nothing 9

whether there is a sidewalk on that street where 10

the crash happened, if it isn't on a highway. And 11

I think that in other areas around DOT work, 12

particularly pedestrian, bicycle safety, that will 13

prove useful in the future. 14

And then consumer education and training. 15

Please consider recommending disability 16

sensitivity training for entity, staff, marketers, 17

dealers and distributors. Recommend that 18

materials be available in accessible formats, 19

including braille and if there are videos, make 20

sure they're captioned. 21

On the best practices for state highway 22

29

officials, for recordkeeping, please consider 1

encouraging collection of accessible data, 2

including the number of available wheelchair- 3

accessible vehicles once those have been designed 4

and are available. 5

And vehicles with additional accessibility 6

features, identifying ways in state recordkeeping 7

and a collection of upgrades post-sale information 8

can help the disability community and DOT in the 9

future identify unmet needs in different areas. 10

And then on liability and insurance, please 11

consider recommending that liability and insurance 12

laws must preclude discrimination on the basis of 13

disability. People with disabilities should not 14

be required to pay higher insurance rates and 15

should not be considered more liable in crashes. 16

Let's see, last thing. The voluntary self- 17

assessment template, please consider encouraging 18

an assessment of how people with disabilities will 19

be protected in the vehicle and accessibility 20

features, including HMI, that will increase the 21

safety of people with disabilities. 22

30

Thank you for this opportunity. We believe 1

that keeping people with disabilities in mind at 2

every step will be crucial to making sure this is 3

safe for people with disabilities and does sort of 4

lift up that promise that we keep seeing in the 5

press of increasing access to people with 6

disabilities. And I think this is even more 7

important because NHTSA is encouraging non- 8

traditional stakeholders to be involved and I 9

think it's already been mentioned, we've sort of 10

been -- the disability community has been through 11

this with the Uber and Lyft and sort of non- 12

traditional folks who are new to scene who had 13

said in the past that they just didn't know, they 14

didn't understand what the disability community 15

needed. And so now we know, you know, that we 16

need to have some engagement throughout the 17

process, and NHTSA can help us with that, so thank 18

you very much for the opportunity. 19

MS. SWEET: All right. I'd like to ask Dylan 20

Hedtler-Gaudette, please. Dylan. 21

MR. HEDTLER-GAUDETTE: Good morning. Thank 22

31

you for convening this event. Thank you to NHTSA 1

and to Secretary Chao for all of the work that you 2

all have been doing in this area. 3

I want to start by adding a couple of powerful 4

and illustrative data points to just how impactful 5

autonomous vehicles can be for the disability 6

community. One of our previous speakers, 7

actually, Mr. Henry Claypool, worked on a report 8

in collaboration with some other organizations 9

that really looked at how powerful autonomous 10

vehicles can be for people with disabilities, and 11

there are two particular kind of high level 12

takeaways from that, one of which is that about 13

$19 billion in wasted medical costs could be saved 14

through the advent of autonomous vehicles. That 15

happened largely as a result of missed medical 16

appointments and medical complications that can 17

arise from those missed medical appointments, 18

which in turn end up costing more money. So 19

$19 billion, I think we would all like to have an 20

extra $19 billion in our pocket. 21

Also, 2 million employment opportunities could 22

32

be opened up to the disability community. It's -- 1

it's a sad, but true fact that employment is still 2

a lagging indicator in the disability community. 3

It is a challenge. One of the ways that that 4

challenge manifests itself is through lack of 5

access to reliable transportation. So the advent, 6

again, of autonomous vehicle technology could help 7

to alleviate part of that challenge in the 8

disability community. 9

I won't spend too much time sort of 10

elaborating anymore about the benefits of 11

autonomous vehicles to the blind and others with 12

disabilities. I think the people who preceded me 13

did a good job of doing that. 14

What I would like to speak to a little bit is 15

how NHTSA and other stakeholders can be productive 16

partners in this space, vis-à-vis, the disability 17

community. I think it's important to remember 18

that accessibility and safety are inextricable. 19

They are mutually reinforcing, but we do need to 20

keep in mind that we can't allow the one to be 21

sacrificed at the altar of the other. And 22

33

specifically I mean that we cannot allow 1

accessibility to be sacrificed in the name of 2

safety. It is, of course, true that safety is of 3

paramount importance here. When more than 37,000 4

have died due to vehicle-related crashes in 2016, 5

I think it's pretty clear that safety is critical. 6

But accessibility is also critical. We are 7

absolutely positive that accessibility is 8

indispensable to safety. It is true that the more 9

accessible and inclusive a vehicle is from the 10

ground up, the more likely it is to also be safe. 11

Speaking of safety and accessibility, again, 12

though, one thing we also need to avoid is 13

paternalism. We in the disability community do 14

not need to be told that we are being protected 15

and as result we therefore must wait to have 16

access to autonomous vehicles. What we are 17

insisting on is equal access from the outset, and 18

the only way we get to that point is through 19

substantial proactive collaboration and engagement 20

from the ground up. And that is what we're doing 21

here today. So I just want to again stress and 22

34

highlight how much we applaud and commend NHTSA 1

and other stakeholders for being involved in these 2

conversations, for hosting these dialogues. 3

As my colleague, John Pare mentioned, we, the 4

National Federation of the Blind, did host the 5

first of its kind convening of a broad swath of 6

stakeholders to speak to this very issue, and we 7

did that about ten days ago. So this is very 8

timely. But those conversations and that 9

engagement needs to continue. And we also need to 10

continue on the legislative front. I'm sure 11

everyone in this room is aware that there have 12

been autonomous vehicle bills moving in both the 13

House and the Senate. The House actually passed 14

its bill. The Senate recently got its bill out of 15

the Commerce Committee, so we're seeing progress. 16

We at the National Federation of the Blind 17

strongly support the Senate bill in particular 18

because, as I have been highlighting here, it 19

recognizes that accessibility is a key component 20

of all of this. Accessibility and access are -- 21

are included all throughout the Senate bill and we 22

35

were happy to be a part of that process. 1

So the upshot is that we in the disability 2

community are extremely excited about this 3

technology and the promise that it holds to 4

enhance independence and promote opportunity. And 5

we stand ready to be an active and engaged partner 6

with the rest of you, and we hope that you stand 7

willing and ready to do the same. Thank you. 8

MS. SWEET: Thank you, Dylan. 9

MR. BEUSE: Dylan, you can go back to your 10

seat. I just have one comment, either for you or 11

Henry, just for the benefit of everybody else. I 12

know I have a copy of that report, but those 13

online may not. So if you guys could just make 14

sure that gets into the docket at some point, I'd 15

appreciate it. 16

MS. SWEET: Great. Is Megan Ekstrom here 17

today? Megan, if you could come forward, please. 18

MS. EKSTROM: Hi. My name is Megan Ekstrom 19

and I'm the vice president of government affairs 20

for the Motorcycle Riders Foundation. The 21

Motorcycle Riders Foundation, or the MRF, we 22

36

provide leadership for state's motorcyclists, 1

riders associations as well as motorcycle clubs 2

and individual riders. And through our state 3

partners and affiliates, we have a network of over 4

250,000 motorcycle riders. 5

We're chiefly concerned with issues at the 6

national and international levels that impact the 7

freedom and safety of American street? 8

motorcyclists and the regulations and policies 9

surrounding autonomous vehicles in certainly one 10

of these areas. 11

I'd like to start by thanking NHTSA for 12

hosting this listening session and taking the 13

steps to approaching this next generation of 14

technology through an open, transparent and 15

collaborative process. However, in reviewing the 16

most recent guidelines, we did note that 17

motorcyclists were mentioned only twice in the 36- 18

page document and only in the context of being 19

under NHTSA's jurisdiction and under Point 6 of 20

Section 1, the human machine interface. 21

While we recognize and appreciate this attempt 22

37

at being inclusive, we continue to be a little bit 1

apprehensive that the unique characteristics of 2

motorcyclists and their road etiquette is far 3

different from that of other types of vehicles and 4

road users. 5

With the latest statistics suggesting that 6

there are over 8.5 million riders on our nation's 7

highways, it is critical that this unique group of 8

roadway users be included in future guidance, 9

specifically as it relates to object and event 10

detection. This will not only be important for 11

future automated technologies such as SAE 12

automation Levels 3, 4 and 5, but it is currently 13

a concern for Level 2 vehicles already on our 14

nation's roadway. 15

In March of this year a Tesla on autopilot 16

crashed into a stopped police officer on his 17

motorcycle in Arizona. The officer, who was in 18

front of the Tesla driver, stopped for a stoplight 19

and after stopping briefly, the Tesla began to 20

move forward, prompting the officer to jump off 21

his motorcycle and move away. The car then struck 22

38

the fallen motorcycle, and it's incidents like 1

these that have motorcyclists very rightfully 2

concerned about the emergence of autonomous 3

vehicles. 4

Today my comments specifically surround Point 5

3 of Section 1 of the guidance, which is the 6

object and event detection and response. We were 7

pleased to see the encouragement for automakers 8

and other entities to have a process for 9

assessment, testing and validation of OEDR 10

capabilities. However, we were disappointed to 11

see that when listing the groups of road users in 12

which OEDR function should be able to detect and 13

recognize, the following groups were listed: 14

Pedestrians, bicyclists, animals and other 15

objects. Motorcycles were not listed. 16

The MRF strongly urges NHTSA to press 17

automakers to consider the unique attributes of 18

motorcyclists and include this growing population 19

of roadway users to be a key consideration when 20

developing any sort of assessment, testing and 21

validation documentation as it relates to safety. 22

39

We would also encourage NHTSA to guide 1

automakers to include motorcyclists in pre-crash 2

scenarios, especially those of the left-hand turn 3

category, which is one of the leading 4

circumstances in motorcycles crashes. 5

Finally, we would ask that NHTSA and other 6

parties include the motorcyclist population when 7

determining consumer and public education and 8

awareness campaigns. And approximately out of 1 9

out of every 36 people in America rides a 10

motorcycle. And it's imperative that this segment 11

of the population is a part of any conversation 12

concerning guidance, regulations or policies 13

related to autonomous vehicles as our riders will 14

be directly affected by this technology. 15

On behalf of our network of motorcycle riders 16

in the U.S., we applaud the promotion of 17

innovation, but it cannot be to the detriment of a 18

population of 8.5 million roadway users. We hope 19

and look forward to working with NHTSA to insure 20

that the unique needs and requirements of 21

motorcyclists across the U.S. are being considered 22

40

and accounted for as the agency moves forward with 1

future policies that address autonomous vehicles. 2

Thank you. 3

MS. SWEET: Megan, I have a question for you. 4

You mentioned a specific incident. Was your 5

organization made aware of any incident involving 6

a motorcycle and automated driving systems 7

currently? 8

MS. EKSTROM: So apart from the one incident 9

in Arizona, we have -- we have a couple of 10

anecdotal stories, but that's the only one that 11

made the news. 12

MS. SWEET: Okay. And are you sharing those 13

with others? 14

MS. EKSTROM: Yes. 15

MS. SWEET: Okay. 16

MS. EKSTROM: Yes. 17

MS. SWEET: Okay. 18

MS. EKSTROM: Absolutely. 19

MS. SWEET: Okay. Thanks. 20

Michael Sayre? I don't know if I pronounced 21

that right. Correct me if I said that wrong. I 22

41

apologize. 1

MR. SAYRE: That's all right. Thank you. I'm 2

Michael Sayre. I'm the [inaudible] relations 3

manager for on-road issues for the American 4

Motorcycle Association, and we would like to thank 5

NHTSA for hosting this listening session and for 6

providing the riding and driving public the 7

opportunity to comment on this important issue. 8

Founded in 1924, the non-profit AMA is the 9

premier advocate of the motorcycle community and 10

represents the interests of millions of on and 11

off-road motorcyclists and off all-terrain ve -- 12

well, all-terrain vehicle riders. Our mission is 13

to promote the motorcycle lifestyle and protect 14

the future of motorcycling. Reducing traffic 15

crashes involving motorcycles and decreasing the 16

number of motorcycle operators and passengers 17

injured or killed each year is a top priority of 18

the AMA. Through a comprehensive approach, and it 19

includes promoting rider education, the use of 20

personal protective equipment and increased 21

motorist awareness and discouraging impaired 22

42

motorcycle operation, the AMA seeks to enhance 1

motorcycle safety in transportation and 2

recreational activities. 3

While the AMA is heartened to see that 4

motorcyclists have been mentioned in the automated 5

driving systems document, we believe more should 6

be done to insure automated driving systems can 7

properly interact with our nation's more than 8

8.5 million motorcyclists. We must insure that 9

automated driving systems can safety and reliably 10

interact with motorcyclists on the road. The AMA 11

urges NHTSA to work with manufacturers, software 12

developers and other entities to create testing 13

procedures that can verify the ability of this 14

technology to safely interact with motorcyclists 15

on the road. 16

With the proliferation of advanced 17

technologies and passenger vehicles and light 18

trucks, the AMA needs assurances that the federal 19

automated vehicle policy includes motorcyclists as 20

an important part of its plan. 21

Thank you for the opportunity to make comments 22

43

on this issue of vital importance to 1

motorcyclists. Thank you. 2

MS. SWEET: All right. William Wallace, if 3

you can come to the microphone, please. 4

MR. WALLACE: Good morning. 5

MS. SWEET: Good morning. 6

MR. WALLACE: Consumers Union, policy division 7

of Consumer Reports, an independent non-profit. 8

Thanks for the opportunity to share oral comments 9

on the voluntary guidance for automated driving 10

systems. We share our thoughts on a few subjects 11

today and will make additional comments in 12

writing. 13

At CR and CU, we see enormous potential for 14

automated driving systems to make our roads far 15

safer and to greatly improve mobility. In 16

developing and rolling out these systems, we have 17

heard today that safety is the top priority, as it 18

should be. But companies should show the public, 19

not just tell them, that it is their top priority 20

too. That means sharing their safety data and 21

being more transparent overall. 22

44

Greater disclosure would help companies build 1

trust in their products, which right now is 2

lacking. For example, preliminary survey results 3

released by MIT researchers in May indicated that 4

only 13 percent of respondents would be 5

comfortable with fully a fully autonomous car. 6

Down 10 percentage points from last year. 7

Transparency builds trust and no company 8

should be afraid of transparency if they are 9

putting safety first. Recent history provides all 10

the more reason to be transparent. Whether it's 11

because of GM ignition switches, Takata airbags or 12

Volkswagen emission software, consumers are not 13

necessarily going to immediately trust auto 14

companies when it comes to something as 15

fundamental as handing over the driving task. 16

Consumers are not necessarily going to assume that 17

what companies are saying about the safety of 18

automated driving systems is true. They're going 19

to want to proof. 20

With that in mind, we strongly encourage 21

entities to implement, follow and surpass NHTSA's 22

45

guidelines. All stakeholders should work together 1

to develop a template for exactly what kind of 2

data would be critical to provide to assure safety 3

with regard to each element in the guidance. 4

Stakeholders should agree on a standard for 5

regularly and rapidly updating assessments given 6

that we are in an era in which vehicle features 7

can change overnight. 8

Altogether this effort would help insure that 9

NHTSA, states, researchers and consumers have the 10

information they need to verify that automated 11

driving systems are safe. For consumers to 12

benefit, it would be particularly important for 13

NHTSA to insure there is a functioning online 14

repository for assessments and that consumers are 15

made aware of its availability. 16

This exercise to implement NHTSA's guidance 17

also could help identify and limit the information 18

related to automated driving systems that 19

constitute true trade secrets. We strongly urge 20

the narrowest possible definition of confidential 21

business information. After all, transparency 22

46

should be each company's friend. We know there's 1

a lot of money to be made and competition is 2

fierce, but the competitive push should not 3

overwhelm the importance of transparency and 4

cooperation for safety. That will come back to 5

bite the industry. The last thing we need is for 6

automated driving technology to be slowed down 7

because an irresponsible actor threatened safety 8

and turns the public sharply against this 9

technology. 10

Companies also should not limit themselves in 11

the submission of a safety assessment to NHTSA 12

given the consumer need for more information and 13

given that companies should not be satisfied with 14

driving in the future being merely equally safe or 15

only marginally safer than today. With 37,461 16

fatalities last year, the goal has to be 17

dramatically increasing safety. If consumers are 18

no longer going to be primarily in charge of the 19

vehicle, their expectations for safety are not 20

going to be a 10 percent improvement, it's going 21

to come close to expecting no deaths or injuries. 22

47

While Congress may choose to make safety 1

assessments mandatory, NHTSA has made abundantly 2

clear that as far as the agency is concerned, 3

submission is voluntary. But submitting and 4

making public a safety assessment should not be 5

considered voluntary for companies as they seek to 6

build consumer trust. Automakers should submit 7

and make public the assessments and go beyond what 8

is listed in the guidance to include meaningful 9

evaluation of issues like data sharing, privacy 10

and ethics. 11

In addition, companies should voluntarily 12

submit all applicable information for Level 2 13

automated driving systems. If for no other reason 14

than real world evidence is showing consumers 15

using L2 vehicles as L3 vehicles in a textbook 16

demonstration of foreseeable misuse. 17

Regarding NHTA's responsibilities, we want to 18

use the setting to make clear our view that the 19

agency's research, enforcement and other 20

capabilities should be strengthened significantly 21

through both increased funding and authority. 22

48

NHTSA should be empowered to protect consumers 1

against new hazards that may emerge and to insure 2

automated systems work as they are supposed to 3

without placing consumers at risk. The agency 4

should be able to do this without being forced to 5

divert resources from critical efforts it already 6

undertakes to prevent crashes and save lives. 7

For NHTSA to be the kind of watchdog consumers 8

deserve, all stakeholders should push for Congress 9

to give the agency more funding and personnel as 10

well as a greater practical ability to get unsafe 11

cars off the road quickly. 12

Thank you for your consideration of our 13

comments, and we look forward to continuing to 14

work with NHTSA, with companies and all 15

stakeholders to insure safety and transparency as 16

automated driving systems move forward. 17

MS. SWEET: Thank you. Is Jason Levine here? 18

MR. LEVINE: Good morning. My name is Jason 19

Levine. I'm the executive director of the Center 20

for Auto Safety. I want to thank the National 21

Highway Traffic Safety Administration for 22

49

conducting this listening session today. 1

The Center for Auto Safety is the nation's 2

leading independent non-profit organization 3

advocating for auto safety, quality and fuel 4

economy. On behalf of the Center's staff and our 5

thousands of members and supporters across the 6

country, we're pleased to be able to provide input 7

on NHTSA's recently released voluntary guidance 8

for self-driving, non-commercial cars and light 9

trucks. 10

We understand that Secretary Chao has stated 11

an updated version of the policy is already being 12

written for release in 2018. The Center 13

recommends that if the agency is interested in 14

seeing its guidance be implemented, NHTSA exercise 15

its authority under the Federal Motor Vehicle 16

Safety Act and mandate its vision for safety in 17

automated driving systems. 18

Accordingly, the Center has three main areas 19

we would like to recommend regarding how the 20

safety concepts expressed in ADS 2.0 could be 21

implemented as well as some changes that should be 22

50

incorporated into ADS 3.0. More detailed comments 1

will be submitted in writing. 2

There may never be a more critical moment in 3

the development of self-driving car technology in 4

terms of consumer acceptance. Proponents refer to 5

its potential in almost mythical terms as if the 6

introduction of these vehicles will magically make 7

37,000 yearly deaths disappear overnight. The 8

public, however, is incredibly skeptical. As many 9

as 78 percent of Americans surveyed are afraid to 10

ride in a driverless car; fears seemingly 11

confirmed by last year's death in Florida 12

involving a semi-autonomous Tesla. One more 13

incident could set back the cause of these 14

vehicles a decade or more in terms of public 15

acceptance. 16

Therefore, it would be in the best interest of 17

all stakeholders to make sure that NHTSA, 18

researchers and the public have access to all the 19

necessary data to assure the vehicles are 20

performing as promised. Currently ADS 2.0 states 21

that safety assessment letters are neither 22

51

required nor is there any mechanism to compel it 1

to submit them. This must change. 2

Next, everyone needs to slow down on when 3

Level 4 and 5 cars will be here and make effective 4

safety features, such as automatic emergency 5

braking, mandatory immediately. While it is fun 6

for CEOs and market analysts to see announcements 7

about new testing plans for robot cars in New York 8

City and San Francisco, the technology is not 9

ready to operate on its own yet. Accordingly, 10

what the Safety Administration should be focused 11

on are areas where existing safety technology can 12

save lives in 2018, not in 2048. In fact, NHTSA's 13

website currently says automated vehicle features 14

already help keep drivers safe, but this is only 15

true when vehicles are equipped with available 16

safety technology. Additionally, the vehicle to 17

vehicle communications rule needs to be brought 18

out of mothballs and made final. It is 19

unconscionable to have a safety rule stall because 20

some entities are interested in making money on 21

the spectrum instead of allowing this bandwidth to 22

52

be devoted to safety as Congress mandated in 1999. 1

The further advantage of mandating these sorts 2

of safety technologies today is that it will allow 3

for an iterative process which will provide not 4

only safety, but data on how this technology works 5

over large sample sizes when interacting with 6

vehicles that do not have the technology yet. 7

Finally, there's a substantial concern about 8

the safety of Level 3 vehicles and conditional 9

automation which hinges on the ability of drivers 10

to take control of vehicles when necessary. Some 11

researchers, including those at Waymo, have 12

concluded that Level 3 technology is simply too 13

dangerous, even "scary," due to driver inability 14

to resume control of the vehicles when required. 15

NHTSA's guidance remains essentially silent on 16

this problem. 17

If the ADS 2.0 is to meaningful protect human 18

beings while simultaneously encouraging the 19

development of robot cars, Section 5, validation 20

methods, must be amended to explicitly prohibit 21

the testing of Level 4 and Level 5 vehicles on 22

53

public roads in non-controlled environments unless 1

and until these vehicles have undergone far more 2

simulation testing both in terms of miles and 3

sophistication. 4

In closing, the ADS 2.0 has the right title, a 5

vision for safety, and the Center for Auto Safety 6

stands ready to help in making that vision a 7

reality. 8

Thank you for your time. 9

MS. SWEET: Thank you. 10

MS. WILLIAMS: I just want to make one 11

clarification. I believe you said non-commercial 12

vehicles for the AV guidance. It actually does 13

apply to commercial motor vehicles, trucks and 14

buses. 15

MS. SWEET: All right. Next I'd like to ask 16

Peter Kurdock. 17

MR. KURDOCK: Hi. Good morning. 18

MS. SWEET: Good morning. 19

MR. KURDOCK: Good morning. I'm Peter 20

Kurdock. I'm the director of regulatory affairs 21

for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. 22

54

Advocates is a coalition of public health, safety 1

and consumer organizations, insurers and insurance 2

agents that promotes highway and auto safety 3

through the adoption of safety laws, policies and 4

regulations. 5

Advocates is a unique coalition dedicated to 6

advancing safer vehicles, safer drivers and safer 7

roads. We've always enthusiastically championed 8

technology, and for good reason, it's one of the 9

most effective strategies for reducing deaths and 10

injuries. NHTSA has estimated that since 1960 11

more than 600,000 lives have been saved by motor 12

vehicle safety technologies. 13

In 1991 Advocates of the Coalition had 14

succeeded in putting the airbag mandate in the 15

ISTE Act of 1991. As a result, by 1997 every new 16

car sold in the United States was equipped with a 17

front seat airbag and the lives it has saved have 18

been significant. Advocates continues to build on 19

our successes by promoting life-saving technology 20

and other bills and regulatory proposals. Those 21

efforts included EFC, anti-lock brakes, rear-view 22

55

cameras and other important safety improvements to 1

passenger vehicles, trucks and motor coaches. 2

According to you all, 37,461 were killed on 3

our nation's roads in 2016. This is an increase 4

of over 5 percent from 2015. AV technologies has 5

the potential to significantly reduce this 6

carnage. However, it is critical that during the 7

next ten years, while self-driving cars continue 8

to be developed and may be deployed, other safety 9

advances which have already been shown to improve 10

safety are not denigrated by the wayside. 11

To the great disappointment of Advocates and 12

others in the safety community, the second 13

iteration of NHTSA's AV policy, which was released 14

in September, is nothing more than voluntary 15

guidance that the industry may completely ignore. 16

In fact, the agency clearly states this guidance 17

is entirely voluntary with no compliance 18

requirement or enforcement mechanism. That 19

language could not clearer. Voluntary guidelines 20

are completely inadequate, in Advocate's opinion, 21

to insure that American families are not put at an 22

56

unreasonable risk during the testing and 1

deployment of autonomous vehicles. This 2

technology must be subject to an effective 3

regulatory framework that provides for certainty 4

for developers and manufacturers as well as 5

guaranties public safety. The agency we believe 6

must establish uniform testing and performance 7

standards and insure that all AV manufacturers are 8

playing by the same set of rules and providing the 9

same minimal level of safety performance. The 10

optional safety self-assessment proposed in 11

Section 1 of the guidance perfectly illustrates 12

the shortcomings of voluntary guidelines. No 13

matter how comprehensive the structure of the 14

safety self-assessment may be -- it could have 15

used a nicer name -- manufacturers can simply 16

choose not to publish one or provide superficial 17

or incomplete information. In fact, under the 18

guidance the agency states entities are not 19

required to submit a voluntary safety self- 20

assessment, nor is there any mechanism to compel 21

anybody to do so. 22

57

While Advocates is pleased that Waymo recently 1

released the first safety self-assessment to the 2

public, it's little more than a slick marketing 3

tool, in our opinion. It is certainly not a 4

sufficiently detailed safety document that allow 5

the public, or NHTSA for that matter, to assess 6

the safety of Waymo's technology. While Waymo's 7

safety self-assessment provides a primer on AV 8

technology for the AV novice, it does nothing to 9

inform the tech savvy consumer, let alone motor 10

vehicle safety regulators, about the design and 11

programming choices that were made, how the system 12

actually functions and any shortcomings of the 13

approach chosen by Waymo. 14

Over the last few years, unfortunately 15

automakers have hidden from the American public 16

and regulators safety effects that have led to 17

countless and unnecessary deaths and injuries as 18

well as the recall of millions of vehicles. 19

Undoubtedly, AV technology will not prevent every 20

crash and will not infallible. Where endeavoring 21

to improve safety, we must not replace human 22

58

driver error with human programming errors, 1

mistakes that could have widespread unintended 2

consequences. 3

Under Section 1 of the guidance, the voluntary 4

safety self-assessment only asks that companies 5

demonstrate they are considering safety. Any 6

defect or setback involving AVs, as Jason 7

mentioned earlier, will severely curtail public 8

acceptance of this technology and risk the 9

progress and promise AVs hold to significantly 10

reduce motor vehicle crashes, fatalities and 11

injuries. 12

A recent study by Pew revealed deep public 13

skepticism about AVs. The majority of those 14

surveyed said they would not ride in a self- 15

driving vehicle. Of those respondents who said 16

they would not ride in an AV, 42 percent said they 17

did not trust the technology, or feared giving up 18

control of the vehicle and 30 percent cited safety 19

concerns; nearly a third. 20

Similarly, a Kelley Blue Book survey released 21

in September found that nearly 80 percent of 22

59

Respondents believe that people should always have 1

the option to drive themselves, and nearly 1 in 3 2

said they would never buy a Level 5 AV vehicle. 3

Section 1 of the guidance also fails to 4

include Level 2 AVs like the Tesla Model S, the 5

crash that's been mentioned earlier. In Florida, 6

during the NTSV hearing held last month on the 7

crash, the deadly fares of the Level 2 vehicle 8

were identified. Additionally, then TSB found 9

that similar problems also existed in other 10

Level 2 systems besides Tesla across many 11

manufacturers. Therefore, Advocates recommends 12

not only should the manufacturers of Level 2 13

vehicles be covered by the guidance, but that 14

guidance should be mandatory for all AV 15

manufacturers. 16

Unfortunately, the guidance also takes some 17

critical steps backwards from the Federal 18

Automated Vehicle policy released in 2016. The 19

sharing of data which will be critically important 20

to prevent defects as well as assess the safety 21

and performance of AVs is obliquely mentioned in 22

60

the new data recording segment in Section 1. 1

In addition, consumer privacy, which will be a 2

significant component insuring public acceptance 3

of new technology was only mentioned once in the 4

entire document. 5

In sum, Advocates believes AV technology holds 6

great promise to advanced safety for everyone. 7

However, federal safety oversight and minimum 8

performance standards, not voluntary guidance, 9

will play an essential role in achieving this 10

brave new world of computer-driven motor vehicles. 11

Thank you for the opportunity to provide 12

comments today. 13

Any questions? Okay. Thank you. 14

MS. SWEET: May I have David Snyder come 15

forward, please. 16

MR. SNYDER: Good morning. I want to thank 17

you for the opportunity of holding this session. 18

My name is Dave Snyder. I represent the 19

Property Casualty Insurance Association of 20

America, an organization made up of a thousand 21

insurers and reinsurers from the smallest to 22

61

global reinsurers that write in more than a 1

hundred different countries. 2

At the highest level, insurers have the 3

fundamental business and social obligation to do 4

three things: Objectively identify risk, 5

objectively price for and finance risk, and third 6

and perhaps most importantly, do our best to work 7

with all other players in society to prevent that 8

risk in the first place. As such, insurers 9

interact with every group here, certainly the 10

public, automobile manufacturers, public officials 11

and, indeed, we share the same breadth of 12

engagement that you and the government have. We 13

share it on the private side and we are partners 14

with you and hope that this is only one step in a 15

dialogue to respond to all of the issues and 16

comments raised today and raised previously. 17

We recognize, as you've heard, there's a huge 18

upside promise for automated vehicles, but we have 19

to deal with the reality that between here and 20

there, there's a real world and that real world is 21

a real world that insurers operate in, as do you. 22

62

So here are a couple thoughts. First of all, 1

what are the challenges of automated vehicles for 2

insurers? Well, will automated vehicles really 3

mean fewer claims and less severe claims? How to 4

assure strong and effective safety standards and 5

protection in the future. How to assure access to 6

data for legislative and necessary purposes for 7

insurers. For example, we have our own set of 8

regulatory laws that require us to price our 9

products based upon risk and require us to respond 10

effectively and quickly and fairly to claims. And 11

what is the opportunity for us to develop new 12

products to best support these technological 13

developments. 14

In this connection, insurer access to data is 15

key to support our ability to play the role for 16

each and every one of the interested parties. For 17

example, we'll need the ability to identify which 18

vehicles are automated and which aren't. We'll 19

need the ability access vehicle data, pictures, 20

video, for claim investigation and liability 21

determination. We'll need the ability at the same 22

63

time to protect privacy, cyber security and 1

intellectual property rights and it will be 2

critical for insurers to be able to play our role 3

in the policy process, advisory boards and 4

committees. 5

Now, here's an issue I want to focus on for a 6

minute, safety and insurance. It's absolutely 7

critical that in the course of dealing with 8

automated vehicles and their promise that we not 9

lose focus on today's auto safety issues. We need 10

to address the new safety issues with safety 11

standards as needed. We need to set clearer 12

expectations for the public and technology 13

developers. Exceptions to safety standards should 14

be exceedingly rare and no exceptions whatsoever 15

to crash protection standards. And we need to 16

assure the primacy of state regulation on 17

insurance and liability issues. 18

I want to go back to the promise for a minute. 19

It's undeniable, we support making that promise a 20

reality, but we do no good if we address 21

individual driver errors, but inadvertently create 22

64

much larger systemic errors. For example, are we 1

really effectively dealing through regulation, 2

through research, through voluntary and mandatory 3

efforts, the potential new threats that could be 4

provided by this technology through glitches in 5

the software or hacking? What we don't want to do 6

is improve the safety on the highway by reducing 7

individual error, but actually introduce systemic 8

error capable of doing significant damage in a 9

split second. 10

And when I say we're concerned with risk, 11

these are the kinds of things we're concerned 12

with. 13

So let me conclude with a couple major points. 14

First of all, on crash worthiness, we urge you to 15

maintain and strengthen the existing occupant 16

protection standards, but you also show a clearer 17

roadmap as to how you're going to move forward 18

with standards and enforcement with regard to any 19

potential new risks created by automated vehicles. 20

In terms of post-crash behavior, the sharing 21

of relevant data is critical and for a number of 22

65

stakeholders, certainly you, certainly the 1

researchers and certainly for insurers, so we can 2

do what we're supposed to do, which is identify 3

risk, finance risk and prevent risk. 4

And finally, data recording, uniform data for 5

crash reconstruction of the type that you've heard 6

about talked about today. 7

Finally, as our emergency medical technician, 8

I want to share one story with you. Several years 9

ago we were called out to a crash on the Beltway. 10

A lady's car stopped in the travel lane on the 11

Beltway and she was hit by three cars and killed. 12

That's the kind of scenario that we simply have to 13

prevent even as we bring about the promise of 14

automated vehicles. We have to make sure that 15

we're not creating new risks. We have to identify 16

them as risks, and we would urge you to act 17

effectively using all of your tools to mitigate 18

and prevent those risks going forward. 19

So thank you all very much. Pleased to take 20

any questions today. And we do look forward to 21

working with you and each and every one of the 22

66

stakeholders in this room as we move forward to 1

make this promise a safe reality. 2

Thank you. 3

MS. SWEET: Jonathan Weinberger, please. 4

MR. WEINBERGER: Thank you. I'm Jonathan 5

Weinberger, vice president of innovation and 6

technology at the Alliance for Automobile 7

Manufacturers. 8

So on behalf of the Alliance members, we thank 9

Secretary Chao and the staff of NHTSA for their 10

thoughtful leadership and the opportunity to 11

participate in this public meeting and to discuss 12

the automated driving systems people know. And 13

it's good to hear that the common goal of mobility 14

and enhanced safety, especially from a disability 15

community. 16

The action that DOT and NHTSA has taken with 17

the updated guidance will help to proactively 18

reduce the barriers for technology that can have 19

profound societal benefits that we've heard today. 20

HAVs and related safety technologies have the 21

potential to significantly improve overall safety 22

67

on our nation's roadways. The fatality numbers 1

for 2016, which we're heard, that NHTSA recently 2

released, underscored what's at stake as we 3

witnessed another year of increase in roadway 4

fatalities. 5

Given that over 90 percent of crashes are 6

related to human error, the crash avoidance 7

technologies of HAVs offer great promise to reduce 8

these crashes. The enhanced mobility aspects of 9

HAVs are also laudable from a societal, economic 10

environmental perspective. HAVs will offer more 11

personal freedom, as we've heard, and greater 12

self-sufficiency for the elderly and people with 13

disabilities as eloquently put before me, as well 14

as other segments of the population without access 15

today. They also allow reduced congestion getting 16

us from Point A to Point B faster with greater 17

efficiency. 18

So in order to make sure the industry 19

accomplishes its safety goals, we support DOT's 20

recognition that federal standardization of 21

vehicle safety is key to the deployment of HAVs 22

68

and the Department of Transportation's assertion 1

of its primacy in regulating motor vehicles and 2

motor vehicle equipment. 3

We appreciate the reiteration of federal and 4

state roles and we're thankful the guidance lays 5

the foundation for interstate and cross border 6

coordination that eliminates jurisdictional 7

differences that would impede deployment. To 8

cultivate further deployment, DOT should encourage 9

states to be proactive in removing barriers for 10

testing and deployment, not in creating them. 11

At the same time, DOT should assure states 12

that they can rely on NHTSA to regulate safety 13

performance on HAV technology, which should 14

obviate the need for state permitting regulations. 15

States have an opportunity to accelerate the 16

deployment of HAVs by enacting state legislation 17

that creates a clear path to driverless 18

deployment. 19

For example, the legislatures of Colorado, 20

Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, 21

Tennessee and Texas passed laws that allow for 22

69

non-testing deployment of HAVs on public roads 1

with and without human drivers. These bills rely 2

on the self-certification and do not require an 3

application or pre-approval permitting process 4

prior to deployment. Legislation of this kind 5

paves the way for driverless deployment while 6

allowing NHTSA to fulfill its role as regulator of 7

vehicle safety performance. 8

We agree the certification -- self- 9

certification regime combined with agency tools 10

such as NHTSA's broad investigative and recall 11

authority empowered adequately allowed NHTSA to 12

achieve its safety mission, vis-à-vis motor 13

vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. States 14

fulfil their role by addressing licensing 15

liability insurance issues like we just heard 16

before me and by promoting uniformity among such 17

state requirements. 18

Moreover, the department aims to achieve this 19

goal in part by adopting SAJ3016, automated 20

driving taxonomy and supporting definitions. Many 21

automakers are already using J3016 by adopting 22

70

these automated level categories in its guidance. 1

The department is eliminating a major source of 2

ambiguity that will help promote harmonization 3

among governments at all levels, both domestically 4

and abroad. 5

The future isn't something we should be afraid 6

of or try to slow down; rather it's something we 7

should embrace and smartly accelerate. This is 8

the path the administration has wisely chosen with 9

the update to the federal automated vehicle policy 10

guidance 2.0 and the revamped voluntary safety 11

self-assessment. 12

Alliance members appreciate the VSSA is a 13

voluntary publication process. This process 14

provides transparency to the public of critical 15

safety elements while affording flexibility for 16

each automaker or ADS supplier to customize their 17

assessment and publish it in the form that makes 18

the most sense for their product and safety 19

development process. This also facilitates 20

benchmarking, which ultimately leads to best 21

practices. 22

71

Additionally, the HAV guidance recognizes that 1

not all of the safety elements of the voluntary 2

safety self-assessment will be applicable to test 3

vehicles. We appreciate this recognition and 4

would like to reemphasize that providing VSSA for 5

each variant of an automated test vehicle will 6

quickly become unyielding. Not only do some of 7

the safety areas clearly not apply for automated 8

test vehicles, for instance, consumer education 9

and training, but providing an update for each 10

modification to rapidly developing HAV prototype 11

technology would needlessly encumber the delay in 12

the engineering process. We ask that NHSTA keep 13

this in mind going forward. 14

Additionally, with respect to crashworthiness 15

template, our understanding is that manufacturers 16

should provide information that demonstrates that 17

the HAV being deployed provide an equivalent level 18

of safety overall as compared to conventional 19

vehicles. This approach is consistent with the 20

expanded exemption process included in both the 21

House and the Senate bills, automated vehicle 22

72

bills that are moving through the legislative 1

process as we speak. 2

Related to this point, Alliance members 3

appreciate the point that Secretary Chao 4

emphasized in the HAV guidance regarding the 5

enforcement authority of NHTSA to identify defects 6

and issue recalls. This process is the same for 7

HAVs as it is for conventional vehicles. The 8

guidance also reiterates NHTSA's role in 9

establishing FMVSSs for enforcing compliance. 10

In closing, the Alliance is pleased to work 11

with NHTSA on updating many of the conventional 12

vehicle FMVSSs for HAVs. This is an important 13

step to reduce the barriers and we look forward to 14

providing input throughout the process and we'd 15

also like to take time -- take the opportunity to 16

thank the USDOT and NHTSA for their leadership on 17

this issue and the next generation of policies in 18

effect, and you had flexible, step forward in 19

providing safer, cleaner and more accessible 20

mobility for all Americans. The Alliance 21

certainly looks forward to submitting more 22

73

detailed comments as part of the -- as part of the 1

formal docket, but I appreciate the opportunity to 2

be part of the public session today. So thank 3

you. 4

MS. SWEET: Thank you. Paul Scullion. 5

MR. SCULLION: Hi there. Good morning. My 6

name is Paul Scullion, senior manager of safety 7

and connected automation, the Association of 8

Global Automakers, trade association representing 9

the operation of international auto manufacturers, 10

suppliers and technology providers. 11

I'd like to thank you again for the 12

opportunity to provide feedback on the automated 13

driving systems 2.0 vision for safety. We 14

appreciate NHTSA and DOT's continued leadership 15

and engagement on this important issue. 16

I'd like to highlight in our remarks at the 17

recent workshop on October 20th, we believe 18

connected automation will provide significant 19

opportunities for improving safety, efficiency and 20

accessibility and mobility. And with the recent 21

increase in highway fatalities, it's important 22

74

that the policy environment continue to support 1

safe testing and deployment of this innovative 2

technology. 3

In my brief remarks today, I plan to provide 4

some initial industry perspectives on the 5

voluntary guidance and will discuss the technical 6

assistance to states later in the agenda and our 7

written comments will go into more detail and will 8

fit these areas. 9

So in general, we believe that the federal 10

guidance supported by NHTSA's existing authority 11

strikes the right balance for promoting safety and 12

innovation and focuses more on those -- and 13

focuses more on those elements that are relevant 14

within the context of the safety self-assessment. 15

The approach to the voluntary safety self- 16

assessment process is an important step that will 17

support innovation and encourage open 18

communication with the public. Consumer trust and 19

confidence are critical to the adoption of new 20

technology and we are encouraged that the 21

administration has embraced a safety assurance 22

75

process that provides the necessary flexibility to 1

develop and test technologies, to increase public 2

trust and support the deployment of highly 3

automated vehicle systems. 4

While, again, in our written comments we're 5

going to do more detail, we believe that a number 6

of areas of the guidance improve upon the federal 7

automated vehicle policy 1.0 by providing 8

additional clarification with respect to how each 9

of the various elements should be considered. 10

We're also in the process of discussing the 11

details of the safety assessment template that was 12

recently issued and hope to provide additional 13

feedback in that area also. 14

We support that the guidance provides 15

flexibility for how information may be 16

communicated to the public and appreciate the 17

agency underscoring the importance of identifying 18

the appropriate level of detail and transparency 19

that can be provided without compromising 20

confidential business information. This is an 21

emerging area and how manufacturers or other 22

76

entities may communication relevant information to 1

the public is likely to evolve as we gather more 2

experience and greater understanding of consumer 3

expectations for how information may be structured 4

or presented. 5

Finally, we agree with the intent of the VSSA 6

in providing more open and transparent 7

communication; however, believe there would be 8

additional benefit in maintaining a website or 9

similar resource that provides the ability for 10

consumers and other stakeholders to link to safety 11

assessments being publicly disclosed by 12

manufacturers. There are, however, several ways 13

that such a resource could be implemented and 14

we're working closely with our members to identify 15

what key elements would need to be in place to 16

support such an effort. And we plan to include 17

recommendations for consideration as part of 18

comments in the docket on this issue. 19

In conclusion, to my first set of remarks, we 20

appreciate the opportunity to provide comments 21

here today and look forward to continued -- 22

77

continued engagement both with the agency and 1

other stakeholders here today to support the 2

testing and deployment of this life-saving 3

technology. I’d be pleased to answer any 4

questions you might have. 5

MS. SWEET: Thanks, Paul. It's just about 6

10:30, so I'm going to give everybody about a 10- 7

minute, 15-minute break. Make sure you're back 8

here by 10:40 and we'll keep going. We have maybe 9

seven more folks, and then we'll open the floor 10

for anyone else who was not able to register. 11

[Off the record.] 12

MS. SWEET: All right. Welcome back. Thanks, 13

everyone, for coming back in so quickly. We'll 14

start back up with Andre Welch. 15

MR. WELCH: Good morning. Thank you for 16

holding this listening session and providing the 17

opportunity to hear Ford's views. 18

My name is Andre Welch. I'm the manager of 19

regulatory affairs in Ford's automotive safety 20

office, and I'm pleased to be here today. 21

Ford Motor Company was built on the belief 22

78

that freedom of movement drive human progress. 1

It's a belief that has always fueled our passion 2

to create great cars and trucks, and today it 3

drives our commitment to become the world's most 4

trusted mobility company, designing smart vehicles 5

for a smart world to help people move more safely, 6

confidently and freely. 7

Ford is investing in an autonomous future and 8

working to provide mobility solutions for 9

transportation challenges affecting communities 10

across the country and around the world. The 11

potential benefits of autonomous technology are 12

substantial, having the potential to save lives, 13

expand mobility and reduce congestion. We have 14

announced our intent to have an SAE Level 4 15

capable vehicle for commercial applications and 16

mobility services like ride hailing and ride 17

sharing early in the next decade. We are 18

progressing our plan through investments in 19

companies like Argoli I [phonetic], strategic 20

partnerships, like the one we've announced with 21

Lyft, by testing Level 4 autonomous vehicles on 22

79

public roads with safety drivers and various other 1

research efforts. 2

Ford appreciates NHTSA's leadership and 3

efforts to charter a policy pathway that will help 4

accelerate the safe development and deployment of 5

this technology and your willingness to 6

continually improve this guidance. 7

Concerning the 12 elements in the guidance, 8

I'd like to make the following points: 9

First, Ford appreciates NHTSA's clarification 10

that the safety assessment letter is a voluntary 11

safety self-assessment and applies to SAE Level 3 12

and above autonomous vehicles. We want to note 13

that the applicability of the VSSA to test 14

vehicles will likely be limited to a subset of 12 15

guide -- of the 12 guidance areas, especially in 16

the early stages, as trained test drivers will 17

likely supervise the systems, not unlike a Level 2 18

system, and will ultimately be responsible for 19

engaging AV molds within the ODD and for the OEBRs 20

and/or the fallback. 21

We continue to encourage consistency with SAE 22

80

J3016 for terms like system safety, OEBR and 1

fallback, for example, as well as other industry 2

standards for AVs as they become mature. 3

Additionally, we share Acting Administrator 4

King's sentiments from the last workshop regarding 5

working in a transparent manner to develop trust. 6

We'll continue to educate and share information as 7

part of our self-driving development effort 8

through a variety of means, including the 9

voluntary safety self-assessment. 10

Concerning the state guidance section, I'd 11

like to emphasize the following points: 12

Ford shares NHTSA's views about the 13

delineation of federal and state roles and that 14

states should remove barriers to testing and 15

deployment. We also appreciate the clarification 16

that the VSSA should not be codified. We also 17

encourage NHTSA to continue dialogue with states 18

to insure that their legislative and regulatory 19

activity does not lead to a patchwork of 20

requirements and/or go beyond the issues addressed 21

in the VSSA. 22

81

In closing, we are encouraged that NHTSA 1

recognizes [inaudible] development in the AV space 2

and that the agency is already working on ADS 3

Version 3.0. We appreciate your efforts and want 4

to continue to be constructive partners in this 5

iterative process moving forward. We are living 6

in exciting times and Ford wants to be a valued 7

partner for delivering the potential of self- 8

driving vehicles. 9

Thank you, and I'd be happy to take any 10

questions you may have. 11

MS. SWEET: Thank you, Andre. 12

Amitai Bin-Nun, please. 13

MR. BIN-NUN: Good morning and thank you very 14

much, not just for hosting today's listening 15

session, but for all the sessions that you -- and 16

dialogues that you've been part of and hosted in 17

the last couple of years. I think that's really 18

indicative of the extent to which NHTSA has -- has 19

been open and receptive to industry and advocacy 20

input on this and I wanted to thank you, and we 21

look forward to continuing to work with you as 22

82

this policy is to be refined and we work together 1

[inaudible] technology on the road. 2

My name is Amitai Bin-Nun. I'm the vice 3

president of Autonomous Vehicles and Mobility 4

Innovation and Securing America's Future Energy. 5

For over a decade SAFE has worked to strengthen 6

America's national and economic security by 7

reducing our oil dependence in the transportation 8

sector and [inaudible] resulting in exposure to 9

the destructive impacts of all parts [inaudible]. 10

SAFE is incredibly bullish about the potential for 11

autonomous transportation to remake our society 12

and make a tremendous difference by curbing the 13

more 37,000 fatalities that are happening annually 14

on U.S. roadways, addressing the dramatic 15

underutilization inherent in the current vehicle 16

ownership model, and as we heard so eloquently 17

today from so many advocates, the ability to 18

provide mobility and freedom to the disabled -- to 19

the disabilities community, to older Americans and 20

to those who are -- do not have full access to 21

vehicles for economic reasons. And mostly 22

83

importantly, to see autonomous vehicle technology 1

will likely secure dramatic reductions in oil 2

demand through driving efficiency and fuel 3

diversification, and that is why it is some 4

important to get public policy right and why 5

it's -- the [inaudible] of these are so important. 6

And that's why we're so appreciative of the 7

work that the -- that NHTSA has put into the 8

vision for safety policy document, which is a 9

positive step towards giving industry and the 10

public greater certainty and visibility into 11

federal policy and as well as serving as a balance 12

between the need for transparency on safety and 13

leaving space for private sector innovation. 14

We're looking forward to continuing to work with 15

you, the administration, as it continues to update 16

and expand your guidance on autonomous systems. 17

So specifically as to the vision for safety 18

document that was issued in September, we wanted 19

to offer two specific suggestions for refinement, 20

both in this version of the policy and other 21

policy guidance that may be coming down the road. 22

84

The first is around commercial vehicles and 1

trucking. Trucking is incredibly important as the 2

backbone of our economy. Trucks haul more than 3

$700 billion worth of freight every year and we're 4

expected to see that grow by 40 percent in the 5

next two decades. At the same time, trucking uses 6

close to 3 billion barrels of oil per day so 7

innovation is not only essential for safety, but 8

it can help us improve our energy security. 9

Later this week SAFE is going to be releasing 10

a report in which we confirm that lower levels of 11

automation of vehicles to [inaudible] for trucks 12

already have demonstrated significant benefits for 13

safety and energy efficiency and are poised to 14

allow even greater benefits at higher levels of 15

automation. So in this context it's really 16

crucial to insure that policy does not get in the 17

way of innovation in the heavy duty sector. 18

So in terms of -- the vision for safety 19

guidance makes it clear that the Federal Order of 20

Carrier Safety regulations place restrictions on 21

the level of automation that's permitting in 22

85

trucking, and specifically around the need for a 1

driver that is always behind the wheel. 2

Our view is that placing a CLN innovation is 3

not in the national interest and we hope that 4

you'll work with the Federal Order of Carrier 5

Safety agency to send a message to the private 6

sector that policymakers will endeavor and will 7

collaborate across agency divides to create a 8

pathway of all levels of automation that are 9

safely achievable. And we believe that the 10

potential benefits of offering a pathway towards 11

higher levels of automation are too great to 12

ignore and so we -- we would request you work with 13

FMCSA to give clearer guidance to the private 14

sector and some -- many startups who are working 15

these area on this particular topic. And we would 16

certainly be happy to serve as a resource in that 17

regard. 18

Our second issue that we'd like -- the second 19

issue that we'd like to comment on is on the topic 20

of safety assurance. Earlier this year we had a 21

report from the state's commission on autonomous 22

86

vehicle testing and safety led by General Mark 1

Rosenkerr [phonetic], former chairman of the NDSB 2

and Admiral Dennis Blair suggested that we have a 3

national conversation about the acceptable level 4

of safety benchmark in an autonomous vehicle. The 5

commission suggested that autonomous vehicles be 6

deployed once demonstrated to be as safe or safer 7

than a human driver. 8

Creating such a benchmark would increase 9

public confidence and help create uniformity from 10

developers and create a standard for which they -- 11

a standard for which policy could be anchored 12

around. Now, certainly creating a benchmark is 13

one thing and actually measuring levels of safety 14

is another. So the commission suggested that AV 15

developers work together to create an 16

understanding about how to uniformly measure and 17

create metrics around AV safety. 18

Recently we've seen some companies contribute 19

to this base by putting together, putting out in 20

the public in the public domain formal frameworks 21

for safety as well as prima facie rules for 22

87

understanding the role and responsibilities of 1

autonomous vehicles in an accident and determining 2

whether one's at fault or not. I mean, I know how 3

common they are, those specific -- without 4

commenting on those specific frameworks that have 5

been put forth, we see this positive that 6

companies have put forth these public discussion 7

and we'd love to see more of -- more of these 8

frameworks or ideas for safety assurance being put 9

forth. So we would suggest that NHTSA, within the 10

general framework of the voluntary self- 11

assessment, solicit industry thoughts on what 12

would be the acceptable levels of AV safety and 13

what's the pathway towards building metrics for 14

measuring AV safety, which may be done within the 15

context of the system safety element identified in 16

the vision for safety and voluntary self- 17

assessment. 18

So thank you again for giving us a chance to 19

comment and we're eager to work with you going 20

forward in an effort to make sure that the full 21

scope of the benefits on autonomous vehicles are 22

88

unlocked as soon as possible. 1

Thank you very much. 2

MS. SWEET: Thank you. And Timothy Blubaugh, 3

please come to the mic. 4

MR. BLUBAUGH: We moved so far back. 5

Thanks. My name is -- again, my name is Tim 6

Blubaugh. I am with the Truck and Engine 7

Manufacturers Association or EMA. EMA represents 8

the manufacturers of a wide variety -- a wide 9

variety of internal combustion engines and the 10

major manufacturers of medium and heavy duty 11

trucks, trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating 12

greater than 10,000 pounds. 13

EMA members design and manufacture highly 14

customized vehicles to perform a wide variety of 15

commercial functions, including interstate 16

trucking, regional freight shipping, local parcel 17

pickup and delivery, refuse hauling and 18

construction. We appreciate NHTSA's leadership in 19

developing the latest guidance that provides a 20

framework for development of the highly automated 21

systems and I am pleased to have the opportunity 22

89

to provide some brief remarks from the heavy duty 1

perspective. 2

We see the primary purpose of automated 3

driving systems as assisting the driver in 4

maintaining control of the vehicle and avoiding a 5

crash. Heavy duty automated driving systems build 6

off existing driver assistance systems on the road 7

today from anti-lock braking to electronic 8

stability control, to automatic emergency braking 9

and adaptive cruise control. 10

Like existing driver assistance technologies, 11

automated driving systems show great promise in 12

reducing the human error of the driver that is a 13

factor in most vehicle crashes. 14

We appreciate NHTSA's leadership in automated 15

vehicles because, like the passenger car -- like 16

passenger car manufacturers, heavy duty 17

manufacturers require a follow-up framework for 18

the deployment of technologies on new vehicles. A 19

patchwork of state requirements would 20

significantly harm our ability to efficiently 21

supply commercial vehicle customers across the 22

90

country, particularly since many of our customers 1

are in the interstate trucking business. 2

Unlike passenger car manufacturers, our 3

customers are often motor carriers that are 4

regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 5

Administration. In addition to NHTSA's 6

requirements that apply to newly manufactured 7

vehicles, the FMCSA requirements control the 8

drivers, equipment and operations of motor 9

carriers. 10

Of note, FMCSA regulations currently require 11

that a trained commercial driver must be behind 12

the wheel at all times. 13

For that reason, and because commercial 14

vehicle drivers do much more than drive the truck, 15

we do not currently envision automated driving 16

systems eliminating the need for the driver of a 17

heavy duty vehicle. 18

Commercial drivers are the fact of their 19

trucking business. They conduct critical pre-trip 20

vehicle inspections, they secure the load being 21

transported, they manage and report on the 22

91

logistics of delivering the load and they guard 1

against theft of the vehicle and freight. 2

Accordingly, we see automated driving systems 3

greatly reducing the human error involved in 4

driving by performing more and more of the driving 5

task, but not necessarily eliminating the role of 6

the commercial vehicle driver altogether. 7

Additionally, unlike passenger cars, medium 8

and heavy duty trucks are each highly customized 9

to suit a particular fleet's needs. And in the 10

aggregate, they are sold in relatively low 11

volumes, approximately one tenth the volume, the 12

annual volume of passenger cars. Based on the 13

high customization and the low sales volumes, 14

heavy duty vehicles have extended product 15

lifecycles, with some models in production 20 or 16

30 years. Considering those long product 17

lifecycles, we anticipate highly automated driving 18

systems being deployed on existing conventional 19

heavy duty vehicle platforms. 20

In conclusion, EMA members aim to improve the 21

safety of medium and heavy duty vehicles by 22

92

developing automated driving systems that build on 1

existing driver assistance technologies. As 2

higher models of automated driving systems are 3

developed, we do not foresee fundamental changes 4

to heavy duty vehicle designs and as more of the 5

driving task becomes automated, we still envision 6

a crucial role for the commercial vehicle driver. 7

Finally, we are developing heavy duty 8

automated driving systems to assist commercial 9

vehicle drivers with the goal of reducing human 10

error of the driver. 11

We appreciate NHTSA's latest guidance and its 12

leadership in automated vehicle technologies and 13

the opportunity to provide these comments. 14

Thank you. 15

MS. SWEET: Thank you, Tim. All right. Mike 16

Cammisa, please. 17

MR. CAMMISA: Thanks. I'm Mike Cammisa with 18

the American Trucking Associations. As a national 19

representative of the trucking industry, ATA has a 20

strong interest in highway safety for all 21

motorists. Highways are the motor carriers' and 22

93

drivers' workplace employing more than 7.3 million 1

people moving 10 and a half billion tons of 2

freight annually. Trucking is the industry most 3

responsible for moving America's economy. 4

The trucking industry moves 70.1 percent of 5

our nation's domestic surface freight and is a 6

critical player in the safety of our nation's 7

roadways spending $9.5 billion per year on safety 8

training, technology, equipment and management. 9

From a trucking industry perspective, the role 10

of the federal government in leading the 11

deployment of autonomous vehicles is essential. 12

Our industry relies on an interstate highway 13

system that facilitates the free flow of goods 14

between the states. I'll have more to say on that 15

during the discussion period on technical 16

assistance to the states. 17

ATA is pleased that NHTSA expressly 18

underscores its jurisdiction over and a need to 19

consider the design aspects of all motor vehicles, 20

including commercial vehicles, and motor vehicle 21

equipment in developing these voluntary guidance 22

94

to insure that the policy framework is appropriate 1

for all road users and vehicle types. 2

Recognizing that there are some differences 3

between non-commercial vehicles and commercial 4

vehicles, the flexibility offered by the voluntary 5

guidance allows commercial vehicle manufacturers 6

and technology companies who are developing 7

automated driving systems for commercial vehicles 8

to apply the guidance in a manner that reflects 9

those differences while maintaining a consistent 10

approach overall for all motor vehicles. 11

ATA supports NHTSA's decision to focus the 12

voluntary guidance on SAE automation Levels 3 13

through 5 rather than 2 through 5 as in the 14

original FAVP. SAE Level 2 requires the driver to 15

remain engaged with the driving task and monitor 16

the environment at all times, in contrast to Level 17

3 through 5 in which the automated driving system 18

monitors the driving environment and performs the 19

driving task. 20

As you know, and is the guide in states, the 21

design aspects of all motor vehicles and motor 22

95

vehicle equipment come under NHTSA's jurisdiction 1

while the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 2

Administration regulates interstate motor carrier 3

operations and commercial motor vehicle drivers. 4

ATA encourages the two agencies to work in concert 5

to remove barriers to innovation in automated 6

technology through the review and modification 7

where necessary of any regulations or standards 8

that do not reflect the realities of automated 9

technology. 10

DOT should expeditiously disclose the results 11

of their reviews of the Federal Motor Carrier 12

Safety Regulations and Federal Motor Safety 13

Standards to allow for a productive period of 14

public engagement prior to the initiation of any 15

regulatory action. However, it is important that 16

the review and required regulatory process do not 17

hinder the development and deployment of automated 18

technology which can be facilitated by exemptions 19

and interpretations while the reviews and 20

regulatory revisions are underway. 21

ATA believes that the voluntary safety self-22

96

assessment provides organizations testing or 1

deploying an automated driving system an 2

opportunity to share information with the public 3

that will provide assurance that the appropriate 4

safety elements identified in the guidance were 5

considered in the course of developing the 6

relevant technology. 7

This information will also help to educate the 8

public about the capabilities and limitations of 9

automated driving systems and how members of the 10

public should interact with automated driving -- 11

automated vehicles. 12

ATA supports NHTSA's policy that the safety 13

self-assessments are not exhaustive accounts of 14

every action taken by an entity which could 15

involve a disclosure of confidential business 16

information and that NHTSA's approval of the 17

safety self-assessment is not required, which 18

would create a de facto premarket approval process 19

that could delay testing and deployment. 20

Due to the differences in design approach -- 21

I'm sorry -- due to the differences in approach to 22

97

the design of automated driving systems in 1

general, as well as differences between commercial 2

and passenger vehicles, ATA does not believe that 3

there should be a standard format for the 4

voluntary safety self-assessment at this time. 5

As NHTSA recognizes, developers of automated 6

driving systems should retain the flexibility to 7

communicate the relevant information in a format 8

that reflects their approach, thus preserving 9

opportunities for innovation in this rapidly 10

developing area. 11

Finally, ATA would like to identify a contrast 12

between a response NHTSA provided to Google in 13

February 2016 regarding an automated driving 14

system as the driver of the vehicle and reference 15

in the voluntary guidance to current FMCSA 16

regulations requiring a trained driver behind the 17

wheel. The NHTSA response to Google stated that 18

if no human occupant of the vehicle can actually 19

drive the vehicle, it is more reasonable to 20

identify the driver as whatever as to whoever is 21

doing the driving. In this instance, an item of 22

98

motor vehicle equipment, the self-driving system, 1

is actually driving the vehicle. 2

Now, the new NHTSA guidance states in its 3

scope and purpose section currently per the 4

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, a 5

trained commercial driver must be behind the wheel 6

at all times regardless of any automated driving 7

technologies available on a commercial motor 8

vehicle unless a petition for a waiver or 9

exemption has been granted. 10

ATA would like to see FMCSA and NHTSA work 11

together to determine how FMCSA's position on 12

highly automated commercial vehicles without a 13

human operator can best align with NHTSA's prior 14

conclusion that a self-driving system may be a 15

driver. To insure consistency between agencies 16

within USDOT and avoid erecting any unnecessary 17

barriers to development and deployment of 18

automated vehicle technology for all types of 19

vehicles. 20

Thank you. 21

MS. SWEET: Thanks, Mike. 22

99

That was the last of our registered speakers 1

for those that wanted to provide oral -- verbal 2

remarks on the voluntary guidance. 3

So I'm going to open the floor. If anyone 4

else wants to make remarks specifically about the 5

voluntary guidance, please go ahead and do so now. 6

If not, we'll go ahead and we have a few folks 7

that registered to speak with respect to the 8

technical assistance to states. 9

So if anyone wants to say anything that did 10

not say anything about the voluntary guidance, go 11

ahead and stand up. 12

All right. So then we'll go ahead. So we 13

have a few more folks that wanted to say something 14

about technical assistance to states. So I'll 15

start with William Wallace. Please. 16

MR. WALLACE: Thanks once again for holding 17

this meeting. Consumers Union, once again we're 18

the policy division of the independent non-profit 19

Consumer Reports, thanks you for the opportunity 20

to share oral comments on the technical assistance 21

to states portion of the guidance document, 22

100

including best practices for state legislatures. 1

We appreciate the work done by NHTSA and other 2

stakeholders on this section of the document. 3

With technology rapidly advancing, it's 4

appropriate to clearly describe and delineate 5

federal and state rules in regulating automated 6

vehicles. As the agency undertakes this task, we 7

appreciate that NHTSA makes clear that the goal of 8

state policies in this realm may not be uniformity 9

or identical laws and regulations across all 10

states, but rather sufficient consistency of laws 11

and policies. 12

What this exercise really should be about is 13

making sure that a consumer can do as NHTSA has 14

previously suggested and drive across state lines 15

without a worry more complicated than did the 16

speed limit change. With that in mind, we caution 17

against going too far in the name of avoiding a 18

so-called patchwork. NHTSA and the states are 19

critical partners in insuring consumer safety on 20

our roads, and this partnership needs to continue 21

and get stronger as automated driving technologies 22

101

advance. NHTSA should oppose as detrimental to 1

safety policy proposals that would unduly restrict 2

the ability of states to protect safety on public 3

roads. This is especially true for measures that 4

would invalidate state and local highway safety 5

laws and undermine traditional state and local 6

roles where a strong federal safety standard is 7

not in place, leading to a vacuum that would put 8

the consumers at risk. 9

NHTSA's technical assistance to states include 10

several areas of useful guidance to the states, 11

and we particularly appreciate the inclusion of 12

best practices for states regarding the 13

applications entities would submit to states and 14

the permissions they would need to receive in 15

order to put vehicles with automated driving 16

systems on public roads. These kinds of sensible 17

state requirements would provide an important 18

layer of corporate accountability for consumers 19

and help assure state officials that testing and 20

deployment will be done responsibly. 21

At the same time, we are concerned that the 22

102

current guidance may understate the advisory role 1

NHTSA can and should play to insure safety. NHTSA 2

and states can and should work together. Their 3

knowledge and skills can complement each other's. 4

NHTSA can make up for areas in which states may 5

lack adequate expertise and vice versa. We also 6

are still concerned that state governors, motor 7

vehicle administrators or other executive branch 8

officials at the state level may grant permission 9

for an automated vehicle to be deployed on public 10

roads without its safety having been sufficiently 11

insured. 12

We urge NHTSA to discourage states from making 13

this mistake as it could profoundly jeopardize 14

consumer safety and confidence in the technology. 15

NHTSA should communicate clearly and forcibly with 16

the state governor if it believes safety has not 17

sufficiently been insured for a vehicle that the 18

state intends to permit on its own roads. 19

As discussed, the technical assistance to 20

states includes several areas in which it is 21

appropriate and beneficial to consumer safety for 22

103

states to regulate the testing, deployment and 1

operation of automated driving systems. This 2

includes issues related to requirements for 3

drivers of deployed vehicles, registration 4

entitling these vehicles, law enforcement 5

considerations, liability and insurance. 6

However, there are additional steps that NHTSA 7

should recommend the states take. NHTSA should 8

recommend that states requires dealers, rental 9

companies and other retailers to clearly 10

communicate the capabilities and limitations of 11

automated systems to consumers to help prevent 12

driver confusion over ADS capabilities which could 13

lead to crashes, particularly of cars with the 14

partially autonomous systems whose capabilities 15

can most readily be overstated or misunderstood. 16

In addition, NHTSA should recommend that 17

states prohibit the operation of vehicles' 18

automated driving systems if needed equipment has 19

been significantly damaged and not repaired. 20

Thank you for your work on ADS safety and for 21

your consideration of our comments. We look 22

104

forward to continuing to work with NHTSA as it 1

implements the ADS guidance and works with 2

stakeholders on more detailed information for 3

states to enhance their oversight of automated 4

driving systems. 5

MS. SHEET: Thank you. Paul Scullion is still 6

here? 7

MR. SCULLION: Good morning, again. As I 8

mentioned, my name is Paul Scullion, senior 9

manager of safety and connected automation at the 10

Association of Global Automakers. 11

In the last few years states have become 12

increasingly active in considering laws and 13

regulations concerning the testing and deployment 14

of automated vehicles. However, the way in which 15

these policies are developed and implemented will 16

likely impact the extent to which the benefits of 17

automated vehicles can be realized. 18

One issue on which there is broad agreement, 19

though, is policymakers -- among policymakers is 20

that automated vehicles should be governed by 21

consistent and national framework rather than the 22

105

patchwork of inconsistent state regulations. 1

We appreciate the agency providing additional 2

clarification on the respective local, state and 3

federal government in addressing AVs. States 4

continue to play an important role in issues 5

related to licensing, registration, insurance, 6

liability and law enforcement as highly automated 7

vehicles are integrated as part of the existing 8

fleet. 9

Indeed, similar to the importance of NHTSA 10

researching how best to modernize existing federal 11

motor vehicle safety standards to enable HAVs. We 12

must also seek to understand how the current state 13

rules of the road may need to adapt to support or 14

enable deployment or operation of automated 15

vehicles both in the short term as well as the 16

long term. 17

The technical assistance to states provides 18

helpful guidance and we welcome the additional 19

background that the agency has sought to provide 20

all [inaudible] through revisions to the normal 21

state policy as well as the frequently asked 22

106

questions section of the NHTSA AV website. 1

However, with continued efforts to develop new 2

laws and regulations there remains concerns that 3

certain policy actions could significantly impact 4

the development and ability of an automated 5

vehicle to travel between states, particularly 6

when a law or regulation impacts the performance 7

or design of an AV or seeks to extend beyond areas 8

already addressed by NHTSA. 9

As the technology continues to evolve, it is 10

important to both understand the effectiveness and 11

limitations of the policies already in place and 12

to insure there's informed debates surrounding new 13

laws and regulations being considered for the 14

future. 15

The transition to a more automated fleet will 16

not happen overnight. I believe NHTSA can play an 17

important role in helping to bring together 18

stakeholders from both the public and private 19

sector and across all levels of government and 20

through collaborative engagement, the stakeholders 21

can better understand different perspectives on 22

107

the key questions and policy issues that need to 1

be addressed and collectively work to address 2

these in the short term and long term as the 3

technology continues to evolve over time. 4

We, therefore, recommend that NHTSA consider 5

organizing as part of its technical assistance to 6

the states a public workshop or series of broad 7

stakeholder engagement sessions to help convene a 8

national discussion on the key policy issues 9

affecting the states. This would not only help 10

better align the respective roles of state and 11

federal government, but also provide a forum for 12

insuring a more uniformed approach to AV policy. 13

It's important that we get this right. And as 14

I mentioned earlier, with increasing fatalities 15

and the need to identify new opportunities for 16

improving mobility and efficiency, we must 17

collectively insure the right frameworks are in 18

place both at the state and federal level to 19

support safe testing and deployment. 20

I thank you again for the opportunity to 21

provide comment here today and I'd be happy to 22

108

answer any questions you might have. 1

MS. SWEET: Thanks, Paul. Mike Cammisa. 2

MR. CAMMISA: Again, Mike Cammisa, American 3

Trucking Associations. And thank you for this 4

opportunity to speak. 5

Again, as the national representative of the 6

trucking industry, ATA has a strong interest in 7

highway safety for all motorists and we are -- the 8

trucking industry is a critical player in the 9

safety of our nation's roadways. 10

Automated and connected vehicle technologies 11

have the potential to dramatically impact nearly 12

all aspects of the trucking industry. These 13

technologies can bring benefit to the areas of 14

safety, environment, productivity, efficiency and 15

driver health and wellness. Automated driving 16

technologies is the next step in the evolution of 17

the safety technology currently available and will 18

help to further improve driver safety and 19

productivity as well as the safety of other 20

motorists and road users. 21

From a trucking industry perspective, the role 22

109

of the federal government in leading the 1

deployment of autonomous technologies is 2

essential. Our industry relies on an interstate 3

highway system that facilitates the free flow of 4

goods between states. As automated truck 5

technology is commercialized, it is critical that 6

state and local laws do not create disparities 7

that limit commerce and obstruct the successful 8

adoption of these potentially safety and 9

productivity boosting technologies. 10

The federal government's clear leadership role 11

in this area precludes any state efforts to 12

regulate vehicle design as such state efforts 13

would inherently give rise to conflict of the 14

federal scheme. 15

ATA concurs with NHTSA's statement on page 18 16

of the guidance that states not codify the 17

voluntary guidance as a legal requirement and that 18

NHTSA should be the sole regulator of the safety 19

design and performance aspects of automated system 20

technology. 21

States should maintain their existing 22

110

responsibilities that do not interfere with the 1

flow of interstate commerce. States should 2

support operations of commercial motor vehicle 3

automated and connected technologies within their 4

rights of intrastate jurisdiction. Conflicting or 5

duplicative requirements among federal and state 6

agencies would create roadblocks to the deployment 7

of automated technology, delaying the safety 8

benefits, fuel savings, emission reductions and 9

potential efficiency improvements to our nation's 10

transportation system. 11

When conflicts arise between federal and state 12

regulations, the federal government must take a 13

clear leadership role and, if necessary, exercise 14

federal preemption. 15

ATA also concurs with NHTSA's recommendation 16

that that states should identify and change 17

traffic laws and regulations that may serve as 18

barriers to operation of automated driving 19

systems. 20

Furthermore, ATA believes that states should 21

commit to insuring a unified national framework to 22

111

facilitate the development, testing and deployment 1

of commercialized automated and connected truck 2

technology, including further harmonization of 3

state level traffic and vehicle rules affecting 4

the operation of such technology. States should 5

take into consideration federal guidance and 6

regulations and avoid placing any performance 7

requirements on automated and connected trucks. 8

ATA supports the development of automated 9

vehicle technology for all vehicle types. We 10

commend DOT for recognizing the need to create a 11

flexible framework for all vehicles on the roads 12

and working with both passenger and commercial 13

vehicle sectors in preparing this updated policy. 14

NHTSA's voluntary guidance to developers of 15

automated driving systems and the technical 16

assistance to states provides a pathway for 17

testing and deployment of automated technologies 18

that sets clears roles and expectations for all 19

stakeholders. This clarity will support the 20

collection of more on-road data which will lead to 21

a better understanding of how these technologies 22

112

may benefit the public along with considerations 1

of how regulations may need to change to take 2

advantage of the capabilities that this new 3

technology provides. 4

Although not within NHTSA's authority to 5

change, ATA supports expansion of the number and 6

duration of exemptions that NHTSA is authorized to 7

allow from current standards that prevent new 8

safety technologies from being put on the road. 9

Expanded exemptions, along with clear federal 10

preemption to insure that there will not be a 11

disparate state -- set of state laws that 12

unnecessarily impedes the testing and operation of 13

vehicles with automated driving systems across 14

state lines and in interstate commerce. These 15

together would help collect real world data more 16

quickly to assist in policy decisions and 17

standards development. 18

Thanks. 19

MS. SWEET: Thank you, Mike. 20

All right. Again, I will open the floor if 21

anyone has comments that they would like to make 22

113

regarding the technical assistance to states. 1

MR. SNYDER: Thank you very much. Dave 2

Snyder, Property, Casualty Insurance Association 3

of America. 4

I did address a couple of these points earlier 5

on, but I wanted to make three points, 6

particularly in connection with this part of the 7

agenda. 8

The first is if the objective is to ward off 9

state barriers to the appropriate implementation 10

of the technology, it's critical that NHTSA not 11

only talk about its role, but actually exercise 12

its full regulatory authority. And in that way, 13

that will become the best argument we think for 14

why the states should not take or maintain various 15

actions that would interfere with the safe 16

introduction of this technology. 17

The second point is one that I made earlier, 18

that state-regulated entities, our solvency is 19

regulated at the state level, so it's very 20

critical that the liability rules which are so 21

interrelated with our solvency remain at the state 22

114

level and thoroughly regulated by the state 1

commissioners. 2

The third point I want to make is don't leave 3

out the localities in the -- in the work here. I 4

know at the federal level you tend to look at the 5

next level of the states, though the states do it 6

all and the states determine all the rules. The 7

fact of the matter is that first responders are 8

largely locality, volunteers or career folks. 9

Localities have a lot to do with the safety laws 10

that are enacted and how they're enforced and 11

applied. Even though it may seem at one level to 12

be purely a state responsibility, the fact of the 13

matter is that localities will become critical 14

players in this effort. So we would urge that you 15

move forward, not only involve the states in an 16

appropriate way to assist in the safe innovation, 17

but don't lose sight of the fact that localities 18

need their own voice in this process because 19

depending on the way the state laws are 20

structured, localities may have a very, very 21

significant role to play in all of this in 22

115

assuring that your objectives are met. 1

So thanks very much for the opportunity to 2

make these additional comments. 3

Yes, sir. 4

MR. BEUSE: Yes, Mr. Snyder, I have one 5

question about your first point, about NHTSA's 6

exercising its full authority. [Inaudible] that's 7

what he said. What exactly did you mean by that; 8

the issuance of federal motor vehicle safety 9

standards or is it something broader than that? 10

MR. SNYDER: Well, I think what I mean is 11

giving the states and the public the assurance 12

that, in fact, the standards are there, as soon as 13

they can be appropriately created and if the full 14

enforcement authority of NHTSA is there. I 15

realize that in the early days reliance on some 16

degree of voluntariness is absolutely necessary, 17

but the question is going to recur, when are you 18

going to establish standards and when are they 19

going to be enforceable. And how are we going to 20

deal with the potential new risk created by the 21

technology? The technology, it's true, hopefully, 22

116

will reduce the risks that we see out there on the 1

highway today with individual drivers making 2

errors. However, if we inadvertently introduce 3

even wider and systemic issues such as all cars 4

stopping at the same time, all cars accelerating 5

at the same time, are large numbers. You've 6

actually undermined the very safety benefits that 7

we all want from the technology. 8

So I think people are going to ask you, are 9

you addressing the existing risks and continuing 10

to address those, and what are you doing with 11

regard to any new risk that will be introduced as 12

a result of this technology. And I think if have 13

a good answer to that, that then that is the most 14

effective way to ward off the barriers that no one 15

wants to see to the introduction of what could be 16

really very positive from every standpoint. 17

So that's the fundamental point I made. The 18

role is not just voluntary compliance that will 19

ultimately, in our view, have to be a level below 20

which you can't all go. But, again, it's much 21

easier to say that don't do that and we recognize 22

117

that and we -- we are very anxious to work with 1

all the stakeholders and you. 2

Thank you. 3

MR. BEUSE: Thank you. 4

MS. WILLIAMS: So is there anyone else -- 5

anyone else who would like to make some oral 6

remarks before we close out? So I think I'm going 7

to have Debbie go ahead and cue up our slide that 8

we have that just shows the formal public docket. 9

We want to thank everyone for their 10

participation today. It was great to see so many 11

familiar faces, but also so many new faces joining 12

in on the discussions. 13

So beyond today's comments, we do have the 14

formal dockets, one specific to the guidance, 2.0 15

guidance, and you can place those comments in that 16

docket number, which is NHTSA-2017-0082. So the 17

closing date for that docket is November 14th. So 18

you have about a week. 19

And then if you have comments specifically to 20

the workshop we held about two Fridays ago on the 21

voluntary safety self-assessment, that docket 22

118

number is NHTSA-2017-0086. 1

We also have listed up on the slide the docket 2

associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act 3

associated with the guidance; so that's listed 4

there as well, and that's NHTSA-2017-0083. 5

Hopefully I got them all right off the top of my 6

head. So -- but they are back here. 7

And, again, we just appreciate everyone for 8

your candid remarks and we look forward to your 9

comments to the docket. With that, we'll close 10

out today's session. Thank you, everyone. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

119

CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC 1

I, KeVON CONGO, the officer before whom the 2

foregoing proceeding was taken, do hereby certify that 3

the proceedings were recorded by me and thereafter 4

reduced to typewriting under my direction; that said 5

proceedings are a true and accurate record to the best 6

of my knowledge, skills, and ability; that I am neither 7

counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the 8

parties to the action in which this was taken; and, 9

further, that I am not a relative or employee of any 10

counsel or attorney employed by the parties hereto, nor 11

financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of 12

this action. 13

14

15

16

KeVON CONGO 17

Notary Public in and for the 18

District of Columbia 19

20

21

22

120

CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER 1

I, PAMELA J. ALEXANDER, do hereby certify that 2

this transcript was prepared from audio to the best of 3

my ability. 4

5

I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 6

employed by any of the parties to this action, nor 7

financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of 8

this action. 9

10

11

November 17, 2017 12

DATE PAMELA J. ALEXANDER 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22